| From: | Reg Me Please <regmeplease(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Dennis Brakhane <brakhane(at)googlemail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Transactions within a function body |
| Date: | 2008-10-02 14:25:19 |
| Message-ID: | 200810021625.19719.regmeplease@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Il Thursday 02 October 2008 16:15:10 Alvaro Herrera ha scritto:
> Reg Me Please escribió:
> > Well, if it is a limitation, and having it would lead to a "better
> > product", why not making it a feature for the next still-open release?
>
> Because no one is working on implementing it?
>
> > In my opinion that's more than a limitation, it's a missing feature.
> > In your code you often need to create savepoints to delay the decision
> > for the commitment.
> > A Pl/PgSQL function is just a bunch of code you want to move into the DB.
> > So the need for savepoints seems to me to be still there.
>
> You can nest blocks arbitrarily, giving you the chance to selectively
> rollback pieces of the function. It's only a bit more awkward.
You mean I can issue a ROLLBACK command within a BEGIN...END; block to roll it
back?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Raul Carolus | 2008-10-02 14:27:34 | Re: W2K8 |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-10-02 14:15:10 | Re: Transactions within a function body |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-10-02 14:27:15 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
| Previous Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2008-10-02 14:19:01 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |